Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the meat is forbidden to be carried, as it is not fit to be eaten until nightfall.

Question: This does not seem correct as if so, how can he say "we should not carry the skin because it is considered part of the meat" if the meat itself cannot be carried?

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that according to everyone the meat can be carried.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the opinion that permits carrying raw meat does so because it can be eaten by dogs, and here it is not fit for dogs.

Answer: Even so, due to the denigration of Kodshim it is permitted according to everyone. They argue regarding carrying the skin because it is considered part of the meat.

Implied Question: The Gemara says here that it is a Basis l'Davar ha'Assur. (How is the skin a Basis if the meat is not Muktzah?)

Answer: This means that before it was slaughtered it was a Basis l'Davar ha'Assur, as the entire animal was Muktzah at that point.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara answer that there it was made a Basis to a Davar ha'Mutar and a Davar ha'Assur, whereas here it was made only into a Basis l'Davar ha'Assur?

Answer: He does not think this distinction is correct, since he currently understands that one can shake money out of his pocket, and even so one does not have to do so as long as he is acting to save a Sefer Torah. It is therefore similarly permitted to bring a bag containing money for this purpose.

Explanation: This implies that if he cannot throw down the money, he could bring a bag containing money to bring a Sefer Torah. If so, when the animal is only skinned up to the chest, it is permitted according to everyone to carry it, since he cannot throw down the skin. They only argue when it is totally skinned, as I explained earlier (116b, DH "Pligi").

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is normally a Rabbinic prohibition.

Question: This is difficult, as the Mishnah in Pesachim (65b) should have listed skinning the Pesach as one of the Rabbinic prohibitions on Shabbos that is pushed aside due to the bringing of the Korban Pesach.

Explanation #2: The Ri understands that there is not even a Rabbinic prohibition, as he is not skinning a significant amount of skin at one time.

Explanation #2 (cont.): This is unlike making a hole in a pus filled sore, as there he is making an opening, even though he does not need it. Similarly, when one hunts dangerous animals, he is trapping. However, this action is not considered skinning, and it is therefore not even considered a Rabbinic prohibition.

Question: The Gemara in Pesachim (65b) says that if it became dark (i.e. nightfall) each person takes his Korban Pesach by the skin. This implies it was not skinned in small pieces. It also implies there that it is referring to Shabbos, as it is discussing the Mishnah there which is about an Erev Pesach that falls on Shabbos.

Answer #1: It is possible that this case is not referring to Shabbos.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is referring to taking the animal by its skin that was skinned until the chest.

Answer #3: The Ri answers that it is possible to say that the Rabbanan are making their argument according to the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael. They are saying that according to us it is permitted to fully skin the animal. According to you, at least admit that it is permitted to skin it in little pieces.

Question: Why, then, didn't the Mishnah in Pesachim (65b) list the fact that skinning pushes aside Shabbos?

Answer: The Mishnah did not want to enter into an argument, as according to Rebbi Yishmael skinning does not push aside Shabbos.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Mishnah does list carrying it and bringing it from outside the Techum, even though this is argued by Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Eliezer. (Why is this argument listed?)

Answer #1: This is not really considered an argument, as Rebbi Eliezer is a Shamuti (from the house of Shamai, and we clearly do not rule like his opinion versus Rebbi Akiva).

Answer #2: Additionally, from this argument we derive that sprinkling (water and ashes from the Parah Adumah) does not push aside Shabbos, and it is therefore stated to teach us this.

Implied Question: The one who understands this and says both are according to Rebbi Eliezer did not want to say that three walls and a Lechi is not Mefulash and without a Lechi is Mefulash, which is according to the Halachah. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because he holds that without a Lechi it cannot be permitted by Ben Beseira, as it would be considered a Karmelis. It is unlike the case of a yard without an Eiruv in the second part of the Mishnah.

Explanation: Instead of differentiating between a yard with an Eiruv and an alleyway, it should have differentiated between a common alleyway (with multiple people's yard opening into this alleyway) and a private alleyway. This is because it is permitted to save food and drink into a common alleyway. Why would it say the case was regarding a yard with an Eiruv?

Question: This is difficult. What does Rabah answer to the question that we should allow saving food and drink into it?

Answer: The Ri explains that Rabah wants to say that the Rabbanan hold like Rebbi Yehudah specifically regarding saving holy writings, not for any other purpose. Abaye's asks his question because he does not think the Rabbanan will only hold like Rebbi Yehudah half of the time.

Answer (cont.): Abaye answers that three walls etc. According to Abaye, the Rabbanan do not partially hold like Rebbi Eliezer, as according to Rebbi Eliezer one Lechi is enough when it comes to saving holy writings, as he concludes that even according to Rebbi Eliezer etc.

Question: Rav Porat asks, why doesn't the Gemara ask a question from the Mishnah later (143b) that says that if a barrel breaks, we allow one to save food for three meals from it? The Mishnah there continues that he may also tell others to save food for themselves, as long as he does not soak it up with a sponge.

Answer #1: He answers that it is possible to say that the case is where the barrel is in a Karmelis, as we suspect that he will carry the vessel four cubits in a Karmelis. However, this Beraisa explicitly says it is on top of his roof.

Answer #2: The Ri answers that the case there (ibid.) is when the wine already spilled on the ground, as we suspect he will soak it up with a sponge.

Opinion: Rabeinu Shmuel says in the name of Rabeinu Tam that this is specifically when his barrel breaks. However, if it gets a crack and it is leaking out, one is allowed to bring vessels to catch what is leaking and to stop up the leak, as he is not panicked to the point that he will bring vessels from the public domain to fix the leak as he is when a barrel breaks.

Explanation: The Ri says that this is said in a style of "this and even this." Not only is it forbidden to put the vessel under the broken barrel in order to catch the wine, as it is recognizable that he is saving the wine with this action, but even to put a vessel next to the roof to cause the wine to slide down into a different vessel is prohibited, even though it is not so recognizable (that he is saving the wine by putting this vessel next to the roof).

Opinion: The Ri says that when they baked Matzos on the Yom Tov of Pesach from clean sifted flour and they had enough for Yom Tov, they were not allowed to then make more Matzos from flour that was not refined. Rather (if one would like to use all of the flour for baking on Yom Tov), he should first make the Matzos from the flour that is not refined, and then he would still be permitted to make Matzos from the clean sifted flour.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that our Gemara is referring to Motzei Yom Kippur (and not Yom Kippur itself).

Question: This is obvious, as it is a regular weekday! What is the difference between this and doing so on Shabbos for Motzei Shabbos?

Answer #1: It is a Mitzvah to eat on Motzei Yom Kippur, as I explained earlier (114b).

Answer #2: Additionally, because they have just fasted there is more reason to say that it should be permitted.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, this could be referring to Yom Kippur itself and it is for the purpose of feeding children.

Question: Why does he quote the Pasuk, "Kol Meleches Avodah" stated regarding Yom Tov? Even though the Torah states regarding Shabbos, "Lo Saseh Melachah" and it does not say "Avodah," it is still permitted to blow Shofar and take bread out of the oven, as implied here that it is referring to Shabbos.

Text: Rabeinu Shmuel says that the text should read, "Kol Melachah Lo Sasu."

Answer: The Rashba explains that the Pasuk, "Kol Meleches Avodah" indeed excludes blowing Shofar and taking bread out of the oven from being a Melachah. We derive Shabbos from Yom Tov, as there is no difference between Shabbos and Yom Tov besides being able to prepare Ochel Nefesh, as the Pasuk states, "Ach Asher Yei'achel l'Chol Nefesh."

Explanation: Since according to Torah law it is permitted, even though it is forbidden according to Rabbinic law as stated in Rosh Hashanah (33a) that we do not stop children from blowing Shofar, implying we stop women from blowing, we should permit it here since he needs three meals.